Review: 'Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials' Goes Nowhere Slowly

Thumbnail: This polished sequel lacks the forward momentum of its predecessor and ends up running in place.

The Box Office:

Presuming your young adult fantasy franchise is lucky enough to advance past a would-be part I, the next question is whether or not you've peaked the first time out. Obviously, if you're getting a sequel that means it was a hit the first time, so that's a pretty good question to have to ponder. And so it is withMaze Runner: The Scorch Trials, which 20th Century Fox is unleashing 51 weeks after the first installment. That surprisingly good (and surprisingly well-reviewed) initial entry debuted with a $32.5 million opening weekend against a $34m budget. Its eventual $102m domestic cume could be considered leggy considering how front-loaded these films tend to be, but it really went nuts overseas.

The 3D-converted picture ended up working that usual Fox foreign magic and snagging $238m overseas for a $340m total. In other words, this franchise-starter began by grossing ten times its production budget in theatrical alone. That is what you call a big hit. So with word-of-mouth relatively robust and an engaging ad campaign promising secrets untold (even as it basically details the entire first act in Cliff Notes form), is Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials going to be one of those "breakout sequels" that opens well above its predecessor thanks to the first film being surprisingly good and surprisingly popular? Early speculation argues for a $50m debut, which would break a record for September.

But even a $30-$35 million debut would be fine, especially on an uber-crowded weekend (Johnny Depp's Black Mass, the IMAX debut of Everest, the platform debut of Sicario, and Paramount/Viacom Inc's Captive all drop on this day), assuming the budget didn't balloon his time out. I don't have the budget for this second film, but I'm going to presume it's not that much more than the first one. So even if it only opens at around $35m this time out with a somewhat more frontloaded run here and abroad, we're still looking at a sizable hit even with a relative comedown. For what it's worth, the film won't have IMAX screens this time out as Universal/Comcast Corp.'s Everest is getting that IMAX-only sneak peek starting September 18th.

Actually, I can't find any word that it will actually play in 3D this time either, although I would be shocked if it didn't do so for particular markets (that's what I get for writing this at 9:00 pm the night of the embargo breaking, so I'll have to update you on that later). Anyway, even if word-of-mouth isn't as strong, and the film doesn't play as well there is absolutely nothing at stake beyond the third and final chapter of the book series on which it is based. Oh sure, Fox may decide to adapt the prequel installments (released or soon to be released in 2012 and 2016, respectively), but that's a bridge to cross when the time comes.

If all three films ended up costing a combined $150m (and I'm completely spitballing here), the first film's $340m worldwide plus post-theatrical profits would be strong enough to basically break even over the long run even of the second and third films made zero dollars and zero cents for the duration of their existence. Like the Lord of the Rings trilogy, the first installment of The Maze Runner was popular enough to make the whole trilogy a hit without even accounting for the next two films. And since I don't think these next two are going to bomb, then it'll be happy trails from here until the race is run.

The Review:

Beyond its overall quality as popcorn entertainment, one of the things that stood out about The Maze Runner is how it didn't necessarily resemble the rest of the current YA fantasy films. It wasn't romance focused, nor was it concerned with an oppressive authoritarian government and the "chosen one" hero who was destined to bring it down. It was just a lean and mean little sci-fi horror movie about a bunch of young men stuck on an island and unable to remember anything about their prior lives, why they were stuck there, or how to navigate the title "maze" which kept them prisoners. The maze itself was a marvel ofart direction and special effects, resembling something of a haunted house in a film that played more like a ghosts-in-the-dark thriller than a conventional hero's journey adventure. So it is a little disheartening to see how quickly Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials reveals itself as a painfully conventional "YAFF" with many (no romance) of the trappings. The picture is a triumph of production design, and its heart is still in its horror elements, but it sets out to tell a story we've seen countless times over the last decade and does little to deviate from the formula.

Thomas (Dylan O'Brian) and his fellow survivors/Gladers have been rescued from the maze and are being kept in a bunker, with promises of a new life once the bureaucracy runs its course. But just as Scarlett Johansson and Ewan McGregor learned ten years ago, there is no island! So our heroes make their escape into the post-apocalyptic "scorch" that is life outside the safe zones. The rest of the film has Thomas and friends wandering from abandoned location to abandoned location, occasionally fleeing from zombies Cranks that roam the wasteland and being relentlessly pursued by the forces of WCKD. If you're guessing that they find themselves searching for a vague would-be resistance movement and/or learn a few things about the people who captured them and what their grand plans are, you'd be right. New friends are made, new alliances are formed and/or broken, and everything comes to a head in a prolonged action showdown which ends about thirty times before resolving on an all-too-familiar cliffhanger that sets the stage for the third and final chapter in the story.

This is an oddly hurried picture that really doesn't travel very far. At 131 minutes, it has tons of fat, especially when compared to the tight 110-minute original. And there is a moment towards the end when a character solemnly states that he is tired of running, and you can't help but agree. There is very little time for characters to actually talk to each other, and the returning cast members barely get much time to interact beyond their participation in the action sequences. As far as stunning revelations, all we really get is confirmation as to what was implied at the end of the first film, with Patricia Clarkson indeed playing the standard icy blonde female authoritarian that seems to be par for the course in all of these movies. Aidan Gillen has fun as the primary pursuer/enforcer, but Giancarlo Esposito is oddly reserved and relatively unnecessary as a reluctant militant.

Without going into details, the villains' grand plans seems rather reasonable in an "ends justify the means" fashion. When a major character reveals their reasons for choosing one side over another, it's tough to argue with their thinking considering what's at stake. Heck, a certain "evil" character has to commit an out-of-character act of violence right at the end so that we know whom to root for in the next movie. The good news is that while the narrative dips into the familiar sub-genre archetypes that the first film avoided, including the notion that Thomas is something of a chosen one/reluctant leader who can and presumably will save the day, director Wes Ball once again doesn't shy away from horror tropes. IfThe Maze Runner was a haunted house movie, then The Scorch Trials is a zombie movie through-and-through.

There is some genuinely terrifying and grotesque imagery here, PG-13 be damned, and the chases and action sequences are quite impressive in a sub-genre not exactly known for its ripping action scenes (the lastTwilight film notwithstanding, because that last battle is friggin' awesome). The extended second act climax is a corker, even if it riffs on a classic Spielberg beat and it plays the whole "girl loses her grip and falls so the guy can save her" routine. But all of this running is truly on a path to nowhere, and most of the new characters and plot advancements don't add up to much beyond what we already knew at the end of the first film. We still like these kids (Mr. O’Brien, Kaya Scodelario, Thomas Brodie-Sangster, and Ki Hong Lee all return), but I also am disappointed that this franchise has quickly morphed from its own unique thing into something more closely resembling theDivergent franchise or the likes of The Giveror The Host.

Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials is mostly a placeholder installment, suffering from "middle movie syndrome" as it neither offers an introduction nor a grand finale. There are some character beats that work, some action that thrills and scares, and the film ends in a place where I have to resist the urge to scan the Wikipedia page for The Death Cure (coming February 2017). The film barely works as a technical exercise, with most of the viewer investment stemming from the superior initial installment. For what it's worth, this second film is about as good as I expected the first film to be. But since the first film was a surprising delight, that counts as something of a disappointment. But with only one more film to go, it's not quite time to give up the chase.

If you like what you're reading, follow @ScottMendelson on Twitter, and "like" The Ticket Booth on Facebook. Also, check out my archives for older work HERE.